Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh DGP To Form Independent SIT To Probe Congress Candidate’s Driver’s Murder Case

The Supreme Court directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to constitute a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to take over the investigation into the unnatural death of Salman Khan, a driver for a contesting Congress party candidate, Kumar Vikram Singh, during the 2023 Vidhan Sabha elections.

The Bench passed the order in a plea filed by the deceased’s widow, Raziya Ali, who alleged that the local police, under political influence, had failed to record the statements of key eyewitnesses implicating rival BJP candidate Arvind Pattariya.

Emphasizing that the investigating agency’s core duty is to instil public confidence, the Court mandated that the SIT must be headed by an outside-state IPS cadre officer and conduct a fresh probe uninfluenced by previous local police findings.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana directed, "Having regard to the nature of allegations and counter-allegations, it seems to us in the interest of justice and fair play that the subject FIR should be investigated by a team of senior officers. We consequently direct the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising three officers: one in the rank of Senior Superintendent of Police from the IPS Cadre, and two officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police."

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the Petitioner, while ASG SV Raju appeared for the Respondents.

"The officers to be included in the SIT shall be outside the police jurisdiction of Chhatrapur District. The SIT shall be constituted within two days, who shall then take over the entire record from the current investigating authority and shall proceed afresh in accordance with the law. "Afresh" in the sense that they will conduct further investigation in the matter, uninfluenced by the investigation already conducted."

The petitioner, Raziya Ali, approached the court seeking a transfer of the investigation concerning the unnatural death of her husband, Salman Khan, to either the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT). The deceased was working as a driver for Kumar Vikram Singh, a contesting Congress party candidate during the Vidhan Sabha elections in Madhya Pradesh.

It was alleged that the rival BJP candidate, Arvind Pattariya, along with his associates, deliberately ran a vehicle over the deceased during election campaigning, causing fatal injuries. Consequently, FIR No. 321 of 2023 was registered at Police Station Khajuraho, District Chhatrapur. The petitioner alleged that the local Madhya Pradesh police failed to conduct a fair investigation due to overarching political influence.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that despite the lapse of over two years since the registration of the FIR in November 2023, the local police had failed to record the statements of the complainant and four other crucial eyewitnesses who had already submitted sworn affidavits implicating the accused candidate.

He further argued that the police had instead recorded statements of random, unrelated individuals to shield the accused and were attempting to finalize a charge-sheet based on a biased status report.

Bhushan submitted, "Only the local police has been investigating and they have, unfortunately, they have done three, four things. One is, there were four eyewitnesses apart from the complainant. The complainant was the rival candidate, that is the Congress candidate in that election, whose driver was killed. Five people, my lord, gave sworn affidavits to the police saying that we were eyewitnesses. We saw what had happened. We saw this other candidate driving his car over this person, etc. And yet, my lord, the statements of those five persons, including that of the complainant, were not recorded by the police. This is one problem."

"The second is, my lord, that the police in their status report, which they are saying that they will file the charge sheet on the basis of that status report, they say that statements of four or three people from the complainant's side, family, were examined and they said that no, this person, the candidate's car was not there, he was not involved and there was no deliberate running over by the car. And those three persons, my lord, are not related in any way. They were not from the complainant's party. The police just recorded the statements of three random people", he added.

To which CJI Kant said, "What you can do, if you... one is that because sometimes disclosing the name in court, on record, may unnecessarily invite a risk to some witnesses also. Following the witness protection principle, if you can give those four or five names to the ASG or to the state court."

The ASG SV Raju, strongly refuted the allegations of bias and political influence. He submitted that the state investigating agency had conducted the probe in a fair, independent, and impartial manner, and that the investigation was nearing completion.

The Court observed that a prayer for transfer of investigation made by the victim's family carries a different legal connotation than a similar prayer made by a co-accused or a party in a cross-case, as it fundamentally involves instilling public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Justice Bagchi remarked, "Now, Mr. Bhushan, here is a victim's wife or mother. Their prayer for transfer has a different connotation than from a cross-case or a co-accused prayer. That we have to see independently. What is Mr. Bhushan's main grievance? There are certain witnesses which the complainant feels are relevant for the unfolding of the case. Your investigating agency requires to look into that, verify their credentials, and record their statements before a Magistrate if necessary."

Justice Bagchi said to ASG Raju, "Your duty as an investigating agency is to instil confidence."

Accordingly, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, to constitute a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) within two days.

The Court ordered, "It goes without saying that the statements of the persons who are alleged to be eyewitnesses, and who submitted affidavits, will also be duly recorded and taken into consideration before submitting the report to the court of competent jurisdiction. The officer who shall head the SIT shall be from the IPS cadre of Madhya Pradesh, but he should belong to a state other than Madhya Pradesh."

The SIT was ordered to be headed by an IPS cadre officer of Madhya Pradesh belonging to a different home state, and to comprise two other officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police, all chosen from outside the police jurisdiction of Chhatrapur District.

Cause Title: Raziya Ali v. Union of India and Ors. [W.P.(Crl.) No. 364/2025]